The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
God knows how many years ago, Zelda numbero one was released. A few years back, Ocarina of Time was released on the N64.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
Page:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
God knows how many years ago, Zelda numbero one was released. A few years back, Ocarina of Time was released on the N64.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
Page: